Professionalism/ChatGPT and the New York City Department of Education

The case of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE) and ChatGPT serves as a rich exploration of ethical tensions at the intersection of education, technology, and institutional responsibility. This chapter outlines how public officials, educators, students, and OpenAI have navigated the implementation of this new and powerful tool in the classroom thus far. 

A Very Short Lived Ban

Introduction

David Banks, NYC Schools Chancellor

In late 2022, the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT burst onto the scene, raising excitement and alarm in education. By early January 2023, the New York City Department of Education, the nation’s largest school district, blocked access to ChatGPT on school devices and networks, citing "negative impacts on student learning" and concerns about the "safety and accuracy of content." Officials feared that AI might enable cheating and provide quick answers without building real skills​. This decision marked a temporary ban on the use of ChatGPT in NYC public schools and quickly became a national bellwether. Just a few months later, however, the NYC DOE reversed the ban, with the School's Chancellor David Banks calling the initial move a "knee-jerk" reaction made out of fear​.

Implementing the Ban

On January 3, 2023, NYC education officials confirmed that ChatGPT had been blocked on all education department networks and devices. Banks and his team made this decision swiftly, less than two months after ChatGPT’s public release. The ban meant that students and teachers could not use ChatGPT on school WiFi or school-issued iPads and laptops, though individual schools could request access if they planned to study the technology itself. The block placed ChatGPT alongside platforms like YouTube and Roblox on the district’s restricted websites list​.

The DOE’s rationale for the ban revolved around academic integrity and the quality of learning. The district – like many educators elsewhere – worried that students might use the AI to cheat on essays and assignments, undermining their own learning​. As one official put it, an over reliance on AI may cause students to "lack the necessary skills to evaluate information" critically​. Teachers reported instances of ChatGPT generating polished essays in seconds, raising alarms that traditional take-home writing tasks could become obsolete​. Concerns about misinformation and inappropriate content also arose: ChatGPT can sometimes produce incorrect or fictional information or even offensive language, which could harm students​.

Despite the ban, NYC DOE acknowledged it could not block access entirely. Students could still reach ChatGPT on personal devices or on home internet, beyond the school’s firewall. This meant the policy was more a strong statement than an all-encompassing solution; a fact not lost on observers who noted tech-savvy students would find workarounds. "If they’re not using it in their classes, they can use it at home," one education technology expert pointed out, emphasizing that blocking a website at school has limited effect.

Still, NYC’s stance carried significant weight. As the first major U.S. school district to announce such a ban, New York City’s decision set the tone for others. Officials noted that the move by the nation’s largest school system "could have ripple effects as districts and schools across the country grapple with how to respond" to this new technology. Within weeks, a few other big districts took similar steps: for example, Seattle Public Schools also moved to restrict the site, specifically noting the difficulty of detecting AI-written work. "That decision… spurred other districts to follow suit," one education publication later observed of NYC’s leadership​.

Reconsideration and Reversal

OpenAI's ChatGPT reenters NYC classrooms

In the months after the ban, NYC educators and officials engaged in intensive discussions about ChatGPT’s place in schools. The issue was clearly not going away; teachers were buzzing about it in staff rooms and online forums. By February 2023, Banks hinted that the policy might evolve. Speaking on local media, Banks suggested the department would soon issue new guidance on ChatGPT and even allow its use "with guardrails" in place. This was a notable softening of tone. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT), NYC’s powerful teachers’ union, had also convened a working group to study ChatGPT’s impact on homework and learning​. Union representatives reported "mixed" reactions among educators: "some people…have been terrified" of the cheating threat and wanted the AI gone, while others were eager "to explore" its potential. This internal pressure to find a more nuanced approach set the stage for a policy reversal.

On May 18, 2023, the NYC Department of Education officially reversed the ban on ChatGPT​. In a Chalkbeat op-ed and in public statements, Banks admitted that the initial ban was put in place due to fear of the unknown​. He justified the decision by explaining that the ban had given the school system “time to understand” the technology’s implications. In hindsight, he wrote, the caution was justified as a temporary measure, but it was now time to move forward. Banks explained that over the spring his team had consulted with technology industry leaders and “our most trusted experts — citywide educators” to craft a better strategy​. Through these conversations, the district came to recognize that ChatGPT could be an asset in the classroom if used responsibly, and that schools must teach students about AI rather than shun it.

With the reversal, NYC DOE launched a new, more permissive policy with an emphasis on guidance. Banks announced that “New York City Public Schools will encourage and support our educators and students as they learn about and explore this game-changing technology." Instead of a blanket ban, the district would provide teachers with training and resources on how to incorporate AI. The chancellor promised a "toolkit of resources" and real-life examples for educators, along with a shared repository where teachers and students could share their findings and best practices using ChatGPT in lessons​. The goal was to harness ChatGPT’s advantages for learning while mitigating its risks. This reversal marked a profound change in the district’s approach, acknowledging that generative AI is here to stay and that schools have a role in teaching AI literacy and ethics rather than ignoring the technology.

Participants and Ethical Considerations

Initially, NYC DOE officials and educators were concerned about ChatGPT's potential to disrupt existing educational practices and hamstring students' learning. Deputy Press Secretary Jenna Lyle claimed that ChatGPT does not “help build critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.” Chancellor David Banks aimed to maintain a “high academic bar” while protecting students from AI's hazards. The initial ban was a result of the leaders' ethical responsibility to protect student safety and learning while maintaining core educational pillars of diligence, originality, and critical thinking. However, resulting ethical complications occurred: students with home internet access and personal devices could reap the short-term benefits of ChatGPT outside of school networks, while those without had no access. Moreover, blocking the use of ChatGPT would prevent students from building AI literacy, leaving them susceptible to its hazards. As a result, the ban was lifted.

The ban's lifting reflected the ethical responsibility of educational leaders to enable long-term success of its students. Banks, who conceded that early fear “overlooked the potential” of AI, now acknowledged the inevitability of students working in an AI-integrated world. The shift would enable necessary training to equip students with skills and ethical fluency in emerging technologies. Yet, opportunity without a structured approach creates new ethical risks. With the ban lifted, the burden of responsible AI use shifted—from district policymakers to individual teachers, parents, and students, many of whom received no clear guidance.

Teachers remain divided as some express concern that AI "is a way to outsource their thinking" and "flat-out cheat." Their worry is rooted in a vision of learning that privileges authentic struggle over expediency. Conversely, students face a different ethical terrain—shaped by tool abundance and institutional ambiguity. For them, the real integrity test is not whether they use AI, but how. Devin Berkowitz, a student in NYC, states "Rather than framing ChatGPT as a way to cheat, teachers can show their students how to use it to their advantage, while still keeping their own original ideas. In today's world, technology is quickly becoming more intelligent, but I don't think we have to fear it." He argues that honest, strategic use can coexist with student originality, challenging the binary of integrity versus assistance. These contrasting viewpoints echo a wider debate across education—how to balance integrity and innovation, a question schools worldwide are still grappling with as AI evolves.

OpenAI’s role introduces another ethical layer. While the company did not directly intervene in the classroom, its technology did. Without clear educational guidance at launch, ChatGPT became a powerful but unmoderated influence. OpenAI’s decision to release ChatGPT without tailored guardrails for classrooms raises the question: Should companies anticipate downstream educational impacts before deployment? This forces a key ethical question: Do creators of powerful tools bear responsibility for shaping how people utilize them? Or is it solely up to public institutions to adapt? This challenge raises a deeper moral question: can innovation ever be separated from the obligations of its consequences? When creators unleash tools with the power to reshape foundational human systems like education, neutrality is no longer an option. Responsibility becomes distributed, yet no less real.

Ultimately, the ethical dilemma is captured through allegory: Do students and teachers use AI dishonestly when unseen, or do they explore its potential with thoughtful intent? The conflict is not merely procedural—it is existential. Students must learn not only how to use AI, but why, when, and whether to use it at all. Ethical agency becomes the most critical skill in a world where intelligence is no longer uniquely human. The future of AI in education hinges not on banning or embracing the tool wholesale, but on the collective effort to shape how it is wielded.

Moving Forward

By the fall of 2023, the NYC DOE announced the creation of an Artificial Intelligence Policy Lab to develop long-term strategies for using AI in teaching and learning​. "Technology is constantly evolving and New York City Public Schools aims to remain at the forefront," a NYC DOE spokeswoman said, underscoring the city’s new proactive approach​. This lab, partnering with experts and other districts, would focus on "human-centered AI implementation, equity, safety, ethics, effectiveness, and transparency."

As AI continues to be incorporated, ethical questions will require actionable decisions. Educators agree that student learning and academic integrity must be with supported in all cases. Adam Stevens, a NYC history teacher, highlights that "we've trained a whole generation of kids to pursue rubric points and not knowledge, and of course, if what matters is the point at the end of the semester, that ChatGPT is a threat." Evaluations of student performance may need to adapt to changing technology to ensure educational outcomes are met.

How do we best prepare students for the future? How do we ensure equal access to education? How do we protect the safety and privacy of our students? These difficult questions, and others, remain unanswered. It is up to educational providers and community activists to shape the landscape of public education to ensure a bright future for all.

Was There any Foul Play?

Available documentation shows no evidence that OpenAI formally lobbied or directly influenced the NYC DOE’s reversal of its ChatGPT ban. Chancellor Banks reported that, following the ban, the system held broad discussions with technology leaders about AI’s educational potential, without specifically naming OpenAI. Although OpenAI did announce tools to help educators detect AI‑generated text and expressed a desire to help teachers and students benefit from AI shortly after the initial ban, these efforts aren’t cited as driving the policy change. Instead, the decision appears to have resulted primarily from internal reflection and consultations with educators and independent AI experts.